-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Revert #69280 #69333
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Revert #69280 #69333
Conversation
@ecstatic-morse shouldn't this also add a regression test for #69313, so we don't hit it again when someone re-attempts doing #69280 ? |
@pnkfelix I knew there could be breakage due to #69280. This breakage is allowed since defining We should do a crater run before retrying #69280, although I suspect there will be a lot of regressions due to pinned versions of |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 16790ae has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Resolves #69313 by reverting #69280.
After #69280,
#[rustc_args_required_const(2)]
is required on the declaration ofsimd_shuffle
intrinsics. This is allowed breakage, since you can't define platform intrinsics on stable. However, the latest release of the widely usedpacked_simd
crate defines these intrinsics without the requisite attribute. Since there's no urgency to merge #69280, let's revert it. We can reconsider when rust-lang/packed_simd#278 is included in a point release ofpacked_simd
.r? @petrochenkov